Member Info for Montmuzard

And that's just the oil - loads of it. The gold is then another rinse and repeat...

“Climate hoax”. Yeah, I’ll take your insightful opinions with a pinch of salt thanks. And no serious analyst of international relations has described the US or any other state as a “superpower” since the 1980s. It’s the most militarily powerful state, sure, but it’s not a superpower. It cannot rewrite the rules of international order alone in the way it did after 1945.

Are you joking? A decade ago, it was clear that the scale of China’s industrial transformation and then pivot into green technology was completely restructuring the global economy. It now dominates markets for batteries, solar, wind and is submitting patents at a rate unheard of in human history. It is way ahead of the US and EU in many of these technologies and, crucially, access to or control over the metals and other inputs needed for them. The western expert who has written most about the political economy of this is a guy called John Matthews and he saw this shift coming years ago: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kft8m1

Its economy is also bigger than the US in PPP terms and the gap is only going to widen. The original comment was a glib point that inferred from Trump’s threat to pull the US out of the Paris Accord (a threat he made last time but never carried out) that somehow this will render all new green industry unviable. Nothing could be further from the truth. The economics of it are too compelling and the rest of the world isn’t composed of climate deniers happy to see the planet burn. If he does do it, it will open up another line of domestic opposition to his policies, from both environmentalists and the companies building green tech, the rest of the world will carry on pursuing their commitments and developing their green industries, and if the US doesn’t, it will find that other counties will resist its anti-climate agenda while its own green sectors relatively fall behind.

Not really, it’s a disaster for the US. Everyone else is pursuing the green revolution and the US will just fall further and further behind China.

US climate policy under a single presidential term has no bearing whatsoever on the NetZero transition elsewhere. Almost every serious country in the world has signed up to the Paris Agreement, and even if Trump withdraws from it, domestic opposition will be fierce and every other signatory state will carry on building green technology infrastructure. China isn’t about to give up on this agenda given that it is already dominating markets for many technologies.

On another note, what normal human being spends their time on sharedealing forums for shares they’re presumably not invested in spreading negativity about said stock? Very strange behaviour. Personally I only read about the shares I’m invested in or considering investing in. The others I forget about pretty quickly. It’s almost as if there’s some kind of agenda.

Some weak hands got battered in that shake

Someone evidently knew last night that news was coming this morning, hence trying to shake as many shares out as possible.

All you need to know, right there, in seven words...

Personally, I don't see how the Queeld court case itself could delay the AGM announcement: the latter is a statutory requirement and it should have been announced by now. But, my hunch is that a resolution in the case has always been key to unlocking the sale — in terms of satisfying purchaser due diligence and/or determining that the state owns the shares — and therefore the company may have been able to persuade the Nomad/Aim that, because a deal is so close, they can delay the AGM announcement. So, my theory would be that the two are linked, but it's only progress in the sale process that is allowing them to delay the AGM, not the court case (in the first instance at least) even though the one is dependent on the other.

My suspicion is that the line about a management buyout was inserted, in the first instance at least, to give suitors a kick up the backside and let them know that the board are not going to wait any longer. But, in the second instance, it's surely plausible that Dmitry has the money and contacts lined up. I can see why this course of action would be attractive to him: he would enjoy the liquidity event as a shareholder himself, and presumably, with the company entirely in Russian hands, it could activate Sinosteel for Monchetundra while signing new agreements with Rosgeo to get Nyud etc. up and running again, adding value to be sold further down the line.

Hard to say what the outcome would be for PIs IMO. Lots of unanswered questions.

How would he get himself into a position to be able to take the company over without spiking the share price? We haven't seen any TR1s yet, after all, so nobody has yet built the kind of huge position that would be needed to force a vote through against shareholder resistance.

Conversely, what would happen if he tried to move forward with a management buyout in the absence of accumulating stock? He would need to convince shareholders that it is worth their while voting a deal through, and this militates against a truly low-ball offer in my view.

Would a Russian-led management buyout obviate the need to pay the 50% + 15% exit taxes, as assets themselves are not being sold as such and the company itself is not exiting? This is the most interesting question in my view. I can well believe that Dmitry has an implicit agreement in place with the state - especially if it takes hold of Queeld's shares - that the quid pro quo of there being no haircut is that he will push through a management takeover at a price in a low but not super low range (say, 25p-35p, something like that). Everyone would effectively win in that scenario.

That is what I thought at the time and it was a perfectly reasonable inference to make. It's fairly clear the BOD were on the cusp of a deal as the war broke out, which, for whatever reason, ceased to be the case the immediate aftermath.

"Hence why I'm convinced CS's use of the phrase "No material offers" from a couple of AGMs ago translates as "No offers, but don't want to say that as it sounds bad." How far that situation has moved on since is a different question."

Hard disagree. I interpret this as: "No material offers, but we do have in-principle ones for which we're working through the various things identified by their due diligence and our own until the point at which we/buyers can execute".

"Why then are some people citing ridiculous valuations when this company could have been picked for next to nothing (pre/post invasion)."

How could a company with billions of in-situ assets have been picked up for next to nothing if the owners did not want to sell it for next to nothing and had more than enough cash to keep going? Stupid comment.

"Personally I wrote off my money in Feb 2022. What was looking like a bad egg then suddenly became a rotten egg. I'd love to be proved wrong and if I salvage something great, but mentally I have moved on"

And yet, after barely ever commenting on Eurasia ever before, you were on here in January 2022 saying: "Superb announcement yesterday, I've been here over a year now, very heavily invested (probably overweight). Alas if only I had got the shares at the price some of our long term holders had. The news flow throughout the year has been positive and continually reinforced my belief that this is starting to become a proper company, to be taken seriously. I have no idea what the divi will be, I think some of the numbers being proposed are pipedreams but hey we all dream and what do I know. The important thing is, we know there is going to be one and that it will be a 'significant '."

My suspicion: you're a trader trying to foment some FUD in advance of the company coming back to market.

"Not seeing any of the BoD putting a few quid in the pot from their YEARS of unearned wages are we?"

Didn't Schaffalitzky buy 6 million shares about five months ago?

What fiduciary duties have the company not performed? It's not a fiduciary duty to disclose the details of an outline offer that has not yet become binding, which is what you were arguing.

Few more trolls for the green bin today I think.

You say "all conjecture" as if anything written on these boards was anything else.

I can think of plenty of reasons why a BOD operating in the context this one is would not disclose any of the details of the strategy. The existence of multiple NDAs, for one.

@EIE01 - Agree with your reasoning, but think there could be another reason for the delay and/or refusal to activate Sinosteel: there is some due diligence from one or another side that is preventing a binding offer materialising. On the buyer's side, this could be the Queeld case in October. On the company's side, perhaps it could be something linked to EUA2 that they need in place before executing maybe. I remember the comment in an RNS in late 2022: "We expect potential buyers to remain anonymous until the Company is in a position to execute a legally binding agreement". This suggests that it could be linked to their own strategy, and the buyer has been patiently waiting all along for EUA's next ducks to line up?

"Money is ok to Nov ( possible end of nov who knows) why the need to announce to the world, we need money now in august?"

The answer is in the RNS if you read it closely. They don't need the money, and they anticipate that they won't need it. But they need the ability to access the money should they require it, which is not the same thing.

They are evidently hoping that a sale of concentrate and/or a sale of assets occurs by November, but the auditors plainly won't sign off the accounts on that basis without an additional cashflow guarantee.

The reason it was announced now is - I speculate - because someone or something forced a clarificatory announcement before the company had a chance to finalise it and announce it alongside the accounts once signed off.

My suspicion is that they intended to secure the financing facility and relist with it already done and dusted. The narrative would then have been very different: i.e. reinforced UK cashflow to tide the company over a tricky period between revenues, despite a strong surplus in the Russian subs, while we all await the sale process reaching a conclusion. However, something stopped that happening. Maybe some goon writing letters to the regulators.

Something finally happening?